Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 18, 2012 4:00pm-4:30pm PDT

4:00 pm
supervisor avalos to create an alternative business tax measure and we thank supervisor kim, mar, olague, and campos to sponsor it. we look forward to supervisor chu also been on board. we support amending the fee structure to add an annual adjustment based on the consumer price index. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am the secretary treasurer of opiu local #3. i was encouraged by the controller and the report talking about the two initiatives and how close they are. the idea of switching from a payroll to a gross receipts is something that we obviously
4:01 pm
need. we need some stability within our economic system. we need to make sure that we're creating jobs through the tax system and we need to spread the tax base. -- tax burden on all of us. that is good policy and we support that. supervisor avalos's initiative is more progressive in terms of taking care and try to protect the small businesses and bringingp0wz in more revenue bd on the license fee. i was heartened that the complaints that have been heard recently from the business community do not have to do with the license fee so the fact that we're getting our revenue mostly from the license fee of with those who have $25 million or more in gross receipts is very encouraging and i think the way to go. we really think this is good policy. we also understand we're very close with this deal that we
4:02 pm
want to work together to make sure that we create a policy in san francisco that create p and provides a brod based for achieving that kind of tax revenue that we need. thank you. >> i will be reading a statement from one of my members. her name is from a cut garcia. i am a student in san francisco state university and part of students with [inaudible] i am a single mother with two daughters. for as long as i carol burke, my parents have always worked to provide for our family, even if that meant working two jobs over 20 hours a day and graveyard shift. i have been able to see how much they struggle to provide the best possible for my sisters and i. year after year, they paid taxes, sometimes even thousands
4:03 pm
of dollars. we have always been a low-income family. my heart -- mother needs a heart transplant. it is not fair that my parents have to pay more taxes than some of the workers in san%éjañ frano and businesses that do not pay taxes. the business tax measure put forth by supervisors of fallows, kim, campos, and a lot gate is a clear example of what is needed to raise the revenue for san francisco. itq:g- is targeted at the highet growth companies that do business here in the city. there should not be a fear of losing businesses that pay little or no taxes. there should be more concerned on keeping families in sf. i come from a small community, from district 10 and i am proud to say that the small business act i would like to support.
4:04 pm
and seeing small businesses thrive on community support brings the heart of the city. the city has numerous support when it comes to mom-and-pop stores and not to hear a flinn script on paying taxes is kind of disheartening. i hope the tax is the best we can come up with. supervisor chu: thank you. >> thank you for hearing me. i am city college student and also a member of students making a change. it is an estimate that many businesses for the past 10 years have not been paying their share of taxes. i am urging you guys to support the business tax measure put forth and it seems like it is the best measure for
4:05 pm
recuperating lost revenue. the difference between the amounts would be significant and it would be helpful if they did their fair share. it is on these businesses that can afford it. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i work with coleman advocates for children and youth and i am here on behalf of colon members and the progress of voting coalition. three weeks ago, the supervisors in this chamber saw the need for clear revenue to fund vital city services. we have for the line over and over again, it is not just about cuts but we have to bring in more revenue as well. it is time to walk the walk. time to make sure that we're not just cutting but increasing our pot as well. the two business tax measures
4:06 pm
before you are one and the same. how much are we willing to hold some of the wealthiest businesses in san francisco accountable? the exception lies and if we're willing to stand together to ensure that downtown pairs -- pays its fair share. the measure shows the willingness to not just talk the talk but walk the walk. once on the ballot, san francisco voters have shown as they did with the transfer tax they're ready for big business to begin to pay their fair share. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. kathy burke. if you have not heard your name called, please line up against the wall and we will call you as you come up. >> good afternoon, everybody. i am with south of market committee action network and i am here to read a statement from the co-owner of jp's restaurant.
4:07 pm
this restaurant has been in the south of market since 1994. they used to be called new philippine as restaurant. we did a lot of hearings throughout the city. we also have catered for elected officials for their events. there is a lot of businesses that have been displaced. the rent keeps going up and the seals keep going down. eyeless lost my business. that is why i support the proceeds supervisor avalos has proposed. it would help me and the low- income businesses. we need the low-income businesses to stay in the city. we're tired of being displaced. i urge you to consider the gross
4:08 pm
receipts tax that were proposed will save us. while some people see so much downtown, we see some of what is. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm with the council of community housing organizations. with the progress of revenue coalition and have been talking to many of you about the housing trust fund we have been working on. one of the things when we began working on the housing trust fund was acknowledging a need for new revenue, not just new revenue for housing but for all including new city services. the housing side alone, we have experienced an incredible loss of $50 million in redevelopment this year. a loss of 40% in federal funding, much of the cdbg funding that goes to housing but to related city services. not only that, but our members
4:09 pm
are also involved with small f', helping small businesses prosper and advance. we need a revenue proposal that takes care of small businesses and spreads the share of the tax burden across all income levels. we hope that you will work toward one measure that is progressive and adds a substantial amount of revenue as needed as we face budget cuts year in and year out. thank you very much. supervisor chu: good afternoon -- > > good afternoon. just to punctuate, we have been working hard on the trust fund -- on the fund and appreciate that many members of the board have sponsored the measure and it looks like it comes to the board next tuesday with very favorable prognosis.
4:10 pm
we also recognize how closely related is to the conversations around revenue. so we wanted to come here to show our support for this process in the same spirit that i think the housing trust fund has become a big tent measure that will hopefully go to the november ballot with a lot of popular support. we encourage the big tent revenue measure that would be on the ballot as a companion piece. which would be a great outcome for all this, not just housing. thank you. >> hello to the board. i am a part-time faculty member at city college and a member of ast 2121 and i would like to support the abolition initiative because it feels strange to be living in one of the wealthiest cities in the country went public education is being decimated and i have to pay twice as much to ride the bus
4:11 pm
and now that i did two years ago. we have needed to recover the yearly loss of the $25 million in revenue since 2001 due to the city's settlement of a lawsuit brought by the big corporations, not the small corporations. our schools and public services need as much revenue replaced as we can get. $40 million is a lot better than $14 million. thank you. >> good afternoon. debbie lerman. i want to appreciate the vision for tax reformik&÷n that stabils and increases revenue coming into the city and is consistent with progressive principles that will equitably distribute the burden across the business community including protecting small businesses and insurance the most profitable businesses will pay their fair share. we hope that this board will
4:12 pm
pass on something that we can all endorse and work together on. in particular, we would like to see a measure that maximizes revenue that is available for city services, affordable housing, and many other unmet needs the city faces. a few weeks ago through our recent budget process, this committee struggled until 5:00 a.m. with a list of annett needs and many of them had to be dropped off the list. it is obvious we do have after many years of painful budget cuts and shortfalls, many things we need to restore. one example of that is the nonprofit cost of doing business increase and we're extremely thankful to the mayor and this committee for putting forward a 1% budget increase from each of you. i remind this committee the cpi is to% so although this committee did incur will work, we still have a situation in our sector where nonprofits took a 1% budget cut across the board
4:13 pm
and there's no c.p.i., no increase in the second year of the budget. that is one example of how our services are still gradually eroding and it highlights the need for a proposal that maximizes revenue. this is a great opportunity to restore funding will last 10 years ago in the business lawsuit. we see it as revenue neutral to 10 years ago and we hope this committee will take full of vintage of that and thank you for your work on it. supervisor chu: thank you next speaker -- thank you, next speaker. >> i amsàu -- we're here to urge you to support the avalos measure or legislation. as we know, our community, especially in the south of market has had its fair share of cuts for services and we feel that big corporations÷÷ócs needo parent their fair share.
4:14 pm
we have seen small businesses close down because they cannot survive in the economy right now. therefore, they're urging you to please support this measure and we hope to see that through this committee. supervisor chu: are -- if there are other members of the public who would like to speak, please let against the wall. this will be the final speaker otherwise. >> i am the san francisco political coordinator for seiu 1021 to speak in favor of supervisor avalos's -- both revenue measures. because they are progressive and the underlying principles are ones that we support. we do want to also indicate
4:15 pm
we're willing to look at some kind of compromise as long as there is an escalator for more. after looking at pulling some of our leadership, there is no objections to something like that but it is a little disappointing to us to go below $40 million precisely because of the lawsuit and the cuts we have sustained. we believe it should be revenue positive and we support supervisor avalos's initial measure of $40 million but we're willing to a little that number as long as there is an escalator. thank you for everyone's work, supervisor kim, supervisor chu. we have been working on this for so many years and i would love to c.s. get to one measure
4:16 pm
-- c.s. get to one measure that we can all embrace. thank you for your work. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to comment on items one through 14? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have four items before us. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you. and want to thank the comptroller's office for all their great work, modeling and reaching out to businesses. we're saying a change from the payroll tax to the gross receipts tax and that is one thing we can expect that we can have a tax-business tax structure that is going to be better for our job creation in the city. i see based on that work and the work with businesses, we have a tax system that could be if it is passed, would be more fair
4:17 pm
that we have right now. that is a great testament to the work that the comptroller's office has done with the business community and even to this day is looking at how to make sure we're slowly out some of the rough edges that are in some of the schedules and the business registration fees. that is a significant thing to note. i also want to thank the business community for their work with the city, with the mayor's office and president chiu, to a lot less extent with my office i want to thank you for your great work. and your input has been the label. the advocates as well who are here, people who i have worked with for close to 10 years looking at revenue and replacing the payroll tax. were having these discussions. it is important to note that pathway we have been on has been
4:18 pm
a long road. 7 measure i am promoting. i do think we have a need for bringing flexibility into our budget, bringing in revenue into our budget. i have had conversations with the mayor's office about what revenue could go for in terms of freeing of general fund dollars that currently are either lacking or paying for services for those dollars are very stretched. we currently have very long lines for the help the san francisco program. we could use stronger services
4:19 pm
there were laid off= ;ç in the subsequent year. we have muni operations that are stretched, stretched the lead to serve downtown. people from the far avenue of downtown in the sunset toward downtown. my district has limited transport infrastructure. j$(p(ital for muni and outrage -- operations that support our economy and assure that people who are -- have less access to where jobs are could have greater mobility to get to those jobs. more revenue would help to get their and i hope we can find a compromise or will get two additional revenue to help meet the needs. i do appreciate that we have both of our measures are progressive and a look at distinctions between our
4:20 pm
businesses here and san francisco. i hope that we can find a way to have one measure move forward. lastly, there has been discussion not just here in public comment but in the last wfqszcouple of weeks about havia cost of cpi to our registration fee that is proposed in these measures and i would welcome the changes as we move forward towards a compromise measure having that included. that could be one solution to how we get to a revenue level that we can all support. phasing into that revenue measure and to that level of revenue where we would get there in a couple years. that pathway is before us. i also feel that i have been very accommodating of going toward a compromise measure.
4:21 pm
i have a working reaching out to the mayor's office and the business community, reaching out to colleagues. i believe we have a foundation for that. i did accept a change in a measure for including the exemptions that we currently have for biotech and for clean tech and for a big market. my measure was not excluding, was not taking away this tax exemptions, it was filed on them as they would phase out. i want to make sure that i could show that i am in agreement, that we will have a compromise or consensus measure. it will be important and accommodate the wishes of a lot of folks and overwhelmingly people supported these business tax measures and i would see this going forward in the measure that i am proposing. we would hopefully have one measure that would have those exemptions. i am interested in hearing what
4:22 pm
colleagues have to say about how to move forward. we have some ground to cover between the board of supervisors and the mayor's office and i want to make sure that we can do that. also i want to make sure 4 : am thinking my colleagues who are co-sponsors for this measure indicate that, my colleagues are sometimes, i have to have these kinds of products. supervisor kim, a supervisor campus, supervisor olague, and supervisor mar. i just did that from my head. sometimes get a little distracted. i have a real estate transfer tax that we have a hearing on. we could -- i would motion to éoucfile that hearing. that is still sitting with the department of elections. i have full willingness to pull
4:23 pm
that back if we have one measure going forward. that is something that would help bring us to consensus if i were to do that. supervisor kim: thank you for your comments. as you have talked about, there are a number of different measures that are before us at the moment. items 11 and 12 are the payroll gross receipts measures and 13 and 14 are hearings to listen to the initiative ordinances. these are the initiative ordinances that supervisor campos, kim, and mar and the mayor put forward. on items 13 and 14, there is no necessary action from the board. four supervisors or the mayor can put initiative ordinances on the ballot. so all that is required as we have a hearing for it and that is what item 13 and 14 are karradah no action from us, simply the hearings. i am glad to hear the comment on the willingness to pull that measure because i think if we
4:24 pm
were to move forward with gross receipts payroll tax and the transfer tax, that would be problematic in my mind. to the mayor's office with regards to back, is there a similar sentiment with regards to your initiative you have put on there, item 14? >> yes, it is the mayor's intention to remove the $30 million tranche for tax increase he put on the ballot once we reach consensus -- on a measure that ree greeted by the house fund. supervisor kim: there are -- supervisor chu: in case that does not happen i want to express that i would be concerned if these items go forward. we have a number of transfer taxes that have been
4:25 pm
implemented. i wanted to register that although that does not sound like that is the intention, that could still happen given that mayor cannot put this on without going throughkú%
4:26 pm
million or $40 million and the idea and i have heard this from supervisor avalos and others that that money would enable the city to do more. whether it is additional capital, etc. i recognized that because of where we see the budgets. one of the things i do not want to diminish -- in terms of the jobs generated. if we go-we're going -- we are for going 400 decroce jobs. i do not want to gloss over that. 350 jobs to a person who is unemployed, as we all know we represent constituencies who want jobs, is a lot. i want to make that note. for me, i have a question about whether we do forgo the 350 jobs
4:27 pm
for an additional amount of revenue to come into the general fund. there's a balance between the private and public sector employment. i am not making a value judge about which one i have but aggregate, there is a 350 -- 285 job difference between the two measures. i think that is something that is important to consider. i look forward to the conversations we will continue to have in the next week. supervisor kim: thank you. i want to appreciate also the amount of work my colleagues have spent on this measure. in particular, president to -- chiu and the mayor's office. they have been working on both these measures for about to a half years and in the community with many of the members of the progressive revenue coalition, we have been discussing this 2003 cents-2004. this is something the community
4:28 pm
has wanted to see as being able to distribute the tax burden of a wider universe of businesses and more progressively0!çr that burden amongst our businesses. i also know that in general, we want to move away from the tax system that discourages people from creating jobs and that -- we have seen that through the payroll tax and that is where we have had legislation recommending tax exclusions, whether it was for biotech, clean tech, the stock compensation, or read market. just a couple of things. it has always been an important issue on how we generate revenue for the city and whether -- to address that point again. we talk about taxes, people talk about it as a burden, i talked about it as a burden as well. we need to reframe that it is an investment in our city and parks and recycles and services
4:29 pm
and street cleaning. many of the things are city cares about and those are the things that attract jobs and to the city as well. while tax breaks can also be an incentive for businesses to be here, a great city that runs well with quality parks and public schools and streets are also aspects that attract businesses and of course, residents to live here in san francisco. that is why i'm supporting supervisor avalos's measure before us today. i agree, to measures on a ballot canby -- two measures on a ballot is not good and can hurt our chances and this is the best year to move forward because we have the best chance of passing something this year. it is my intention we have one measure that germinates -- generates revenueoól we can get to that number. i came into this committee wanting to send out one item and i was prepared to do that. the one i have co-sponsored today.